After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overturn

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

It would be shoving down socially liberal morals down everyone's throat in California. My state passed an amendment that is almost identical to Prop 8. No one found it to be illegal, is my state's amendment illegal? The fact is that people in California voted on this as many other states have done. They make a legal declaration that marriage in that state is between one man and one woman. To turn this around and go "yeah you voted, but we didn't like the outcome. Your opinion is illegal and even though we had an election like other states did, you are just going to have to live with gay marriage."

I dunno, has your state's been tested in court? The truth is, you cannot vote to make an illegal law. That is why we have a legal system such as we do.

We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

I dunno, has your state's been tested in court? The truth is, you cannot vote to make an illegal law. That is why we have a legal system such as we do.

Yes, the amendment was brought before the TN supreme court by the ACLU, and they lost the lawsuit. This was also done before they amendment appeared on our ballots. Before people voted in California they should have looked at the amendment and declared if it is legal or not in the first place. My state's amendment is "harsher" than Prop 8 in that it annuls any marriage license from another state that does not conform to the standards of one man and one woman. There is nothing illegal about a state defining marriage, many have done so and none of them have been struck down in court.

Last edited by digsbe; 06-19-10 at 01:17 PM.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates

It would be shoving down socially liberal morals down everyone's throat in California. My state passed an amendment that is almost identical to Prop 8. No one found it to be illegal, is my state's amendment illegal? The fact is that people in California voted on this as many other states have done. They make a legal declaration that marriage in that state is between one man and one woman. To turn this around and go "yeah you voted, but we didn't like the outcome. Your opinion is illegal and even though we had an election like other states did, you are just going to have to live with gay marriage."

homosexuals are not a minority group. They are as much a minority group as guys who have different fetishes. Homosexuality is a sexual preference/orientation. It's not a religion or race. Sexual practices do not constitute a minority group.

The people voted to define marriage in their state. The ballot did not say "no gays are allowed to marry." There was no taking away privileges, but rather a declaration of what marriage is. It was a positive action (defining marriage) not a negative action (removing a gay's right to marry). If prop 8 said "homosexual marriages cannot happen" then you would be right in saying people voted to take away what you consider to be "rights" away from homosexuals.

Honestly I find this all entirely hypocritical. One of the major arguments or the pro-gay marriage crowd is that "no one has the right to impose their morals on another." Basically meaning Christians and social conservatives have no right to say gays can't marry because it isn't their life to run. However, It's completely ok to do the same thing only in reverse. It's ok to go to the majority and the voters and impose socially liberal morality upon people who as a state, rejected it. They are imposing socially liberal morals on a state and essentially doing the thing that they claim to hate and use in their arguments.

This veiwpoint just makes me think humanity is pitiful. With state recognition no morals are being are forced upon any one. One can still have their heterosexual marriage and continue to think homosexuality is abhorrent. With out state recognition of gay marriage morals are being forced on somone, gay people.

This veiwpoint just makes me think humanity is pitiful. With state recognition no morals are being are forced upon any one. One can still have their heterosexual marriage and continue to think homosexuality is abhorrent. With out state recognition of gay marriage morals are being forced on somone, gay people.

Please don't flame bait. The fact is that people chose to define marriage at a legal level. A state has the right to do so, even to define marriage as a union between two consenting adults of any gender.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates

It would be shoving down socially liberal morals down everyone's throat in California. My state passed an amendment that is almost identical to Prop 8. No one found it to be illegal, is my state's amendment illegal? The fact is that people in California voted on this as many other states have done. They make a legal declaration that marriage in that state is between one man and one woman. To turn this around and go "yeah you voted, but we didn't like the outcome. Your opinion is illegal and even though we had an election like other states did, you are just going to have to live with gay marriage."

homosexuals are not a minority group. They are as much a minority group as guys who have different fetishes. Homosexuality is a sexual preference/orientation. It's not a religion or race. Sexual practices do not constitute a minority group.

The people voted to define marriage in their state. The ballot did not say "no gays are allowed to marry." There was no taking away privileges, but rather a declaration of what marriage is. It was a positive action (defining marriage) not a negative action (removing a gay's right to marry). If prop 8 said "homosexual marriages cannot happen" then you would be right in saying people voted to take away what you consider to be "rights" away from homosexuals.

Honestly I find this all entirely hypocritical. One of the major arguments or the pro-gay marriage crowd is that "no one has the right to impose their morals on another." Basically meaning Christians and social conservatives have no right to say gays can't marry because it isn't their life to run. However, It's completely ok to do the same thing only in reverse. It's ok to go to the majority and the voters and impose socially liberal morality upon people who as a state, rejected it. They are imposing socially liberal morals on a state and essentially doing the thing that they claim to hate and use in their arguments.

You are literally arguing semantics with this "positive declaration" thing. It may not have said "no gays can marry" but that's exactly what the effect was and that's exactly what the intent was. Also, no, the "morals" of "liberals" aren't being imposed upon you. You don't have to marry a dude, go to a gay wedding, or perform a ceremony for two dudes in your church. Nothing forces you to participate in their marriage in any way. It never ceases to amaze me how often Christians like to play the victim card. "Oh boo hoo, I won't have legal backing for my personal moral disapproval of someone else's lifestyle. My freedoms!"

Finally, the inability of conservatives, and even most liberals, to understand that gay marriage is about love and commitment, not gay sex, is irritating to a tremendous degree. Guess what, gay people already have sex. This isn't about having sex. It's about being able to legally bind yourself with someone you love, and to have that commitment be treated like anyone else's.

He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear

If anyone cares to read about fall of any Nation/Empire/Civilization, the main point that causes such to collapse is a sharp reduction in the moral standards of that Society, as it has been in the past, so it will be in the present and very likely the future.
A strong Society requires a strong Moral code.

You are literally arguing semantics with this "positive declaration" thing. It may not have said "no gays can marry" but that's exactly what the effect was and that's exactly what the intent was. Also, no, the "morals" of "liberals" aren't being imposed upon you. You don't have to marry a dude, go to a gay wedding, or perform a ceremony for two dudes in your church. Nothing forces you to participate in their marriage in any way. It never ceases to amaze me how often Christians like to play the victim card. "Oh boo hoo, I won't have legal backing for my personal moral disapproval of someone else's lifestyle. My freedoms!"

Finally, the inability of conservatives, and even most liberals, to understand that gay marriage is about love and commitment, not gay sex, is irritating to a tremendous degree. Guess what, gay people already have sex. This isn't about having sex. It's about being able to legally bind yourself with someone you love, and to have that commitment be treated like anyone else's.

In a legal battle the things that matter are the law and what Proposition 8 actually says. And you are wrong, overturning it would be to impose liberal morals upon people. Essentially this is what is happening. The state voted on an amendment to define marriage. The majority vote said that marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. This definition of marriage is a moral stance/belief. It is absolutely imposing liberal morals upon people to say "your moral opinion is wrong, it is illegal and we are going to overturn what the democratic process has done." They are imposing their morals by asserting their moral opinion that marriage is not a union between one man and one woman.

What most socially conservative people believe is that homosexuality and a homosexual marriage is unequal to a heterosexual marriage. Those who are religious (like myself) believe that homosexuality is a sinful behavior just like incest and bestiality. You say it's about legally binding yourself to one you love, so why can't a man legally bind himself to the one he loves if it happens to be a horse, a dog, or his sister?

Originally Posted by winston53660

For the time being that is true it does not make it Constitutional or equal. And it does make me think humanity is pitiful when individual rights are un equal.

That is just your opinion. Is humanity pitiful when the individual right of someone to marry an animal is not equal to a male to female marriage? Anything can be called an "individual right." Society and law dictate what is an individual right and what is not an individual right. In this case California voted that the individual right of marriage is between one man and one woman.

Last edited by digsbe; 06-19-10 at 01:32 PM.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates

In a legal battle the things that matter are the law and what Proposition 8 actually says. And you are wrong, overturning it would be to impose liberal morals upon people. Essentially this is what is happening. The state voted on an amendment to define marriage.

And gay citizens want to impose their morals that their is nothing wrong with their behavior and that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. They want to impose that the state that both they and the heterosexuals live in must grant them equal marital status to a heterosexual married couple.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates